February 10, 2016

Ready to fight back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions every Tuesday.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can each week.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

Hillary Clinton loves black people. And black people love Hillary—or so it seems. Black politicians have lined up in droves to endorse her, eager to prove their loyalty to the Clintons in the hopes that their faithfulness will be remembered and rewarded. Black pastors are opening their church doors, and the Clintons are making themselves comfortably at home once again, engaging effortlessly in all the usual rituals associated with “courting the black vote,” a pursuit that typically begins and ends with Democratic politicians making black people feel liked and taken seriously. Doing something concrete to improve the conditions under which most black people live is generally not required.

Hillary is looking to gain momentum on the campaign trail as the primaries move out of Iowa and New Hampshire and into states like South Carolina, where large pockets of black voters can be found. According to some polls, she leads Bernie Sanders by as much as 60 percent among African Americans. It seems that we—black people—are her winning card, one that Hillary is eager to play.

And it seems we’re eager to get played. Again.

The love affair between black folks and the Clintons has been going on for a long time. It began back in 1992, when Bill Clinton was running for president. He threw on some shades and played the saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show. It seems silly in retrospect, but many of us fell for that. At a time when a popular slogan was “It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand,” Bill Clinton seemed to get us. When Toni Morrison dubbed him our first black president, we nodded our heads. We had our boy in the White House. Or at least we thought we did.

Black voters have been remarkably loyal to the Clintons for more than 25 years. It’s true that we eventually lined up behind Barack Obama in 2008, but it’s a measure of the Clinton allure that Hillary led Obama among black voters until he started winning caucuses and primaries. Now Hillary is running again. This time she’s facing a democratic socialist who promises a political revolution that will bring universal healthcare, a living wage, an end to rampant Wall Street greed, and the dismantling of the vast prison state—many of the same goals that Martin Luther King Jr. championed at the end of his life. Even so, black folks are sticking with the Clinton brand.

What have the Clintons done to earn such devotion? Did they take extreme political risks to defend the rights of African Americans? Did they courageously stand up to right-wing demagoguery about black communities? Did they help usher in a new era of hope and prosperity for neighborhoods devastated by deindustrialization, globalization, and the disappearance of work?

No. Quite the opposite.

* * *

When Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, urban black communities across America were suffering from economic collapse. Hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs had vanished as factories moved overseas in search of cheaper labor, a new plantation. Globalization and deindustrialization affected workers of all colors but hit African Americans particularly hard. Unemployment rates among young black men had quadrupled as the rate of industrial employment plummeted. Crime rates spiked in inner-city communities that had been dependent on factory jobs, while hopelessness, despair, and crack addiction swept neighborhoods that had once been solidly working-class. Millions of black folks—many of whom had fled Jim Crow segregation in the South with the hope of obtaining decent work in Northern factories—were suddenly trapped in racially segregated, jobless ghettos.

3

4

5

On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton made the economy his top priority and argued persuasively that conservatives were using race to divide the nation and divert attention from the failed economy. In practice, however, he capitulated entirely to the right-wing backlash against the civil-rights movement and embraced former president Ronald Reagan’s agenda on race, crime, welfare, and taxes—ultimately doing more harm to black communities than Reagan ever did.

We should have seen it coming. Back then, Clinton was the standard-bearer for the New Democrats, a group that firmly believed the only way to win back the millions of white voters in the South who had defected to the Republican Party was to adopt the right-wing narrative that black communities ought to be disciplined with harsh punishment rather than coddled with welfare. Reagan had won the presidency by dog-whistling to poor and working-class whites with coded racial appeals: railing against “welfare queens” and criminal “predators” and condemning “big government.” Clinton aimed to win them back, vowing that he would never permit any Republican to be perceived as tougher on crime than he.

Just weeks before the critical New Hampshire primary, Clinton proved his toughness by flying back to Arkansas to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a mentally impaired black man who had so little conception of what was about to happen to him that he asked for the dessert from his last meal to be saved for him for later. After the execution, Clinton remarked, “I can be nicked a lot, but no one can say I’m soft on crime.”

Clinton mastered the art of sending mixed cultural messages, appealing to African Americans by belting out “Lift Every Voice and Sing” in black churches, while at the same time signaling to poor and working-class whites that he was willing to be tougher on black communities than Republicans had been.

Clinton was praised for his no-nonsense, pragmatic approach to racial politics. He won the election and appointed a racially diverse cabinet that “looked like America.” He won re-election four years later, and the American economy rebounded. Democrats cheered. The Democratic Party had been saved. The Clintons won. Guess who lost?

* * *

Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history. Clinton did not declare the War on Crime or the War on Drugs—those wars were declared before Reagan was elected and long before crack hit the streets—but he escalated it beyond what many conservatives had imagined possible. He supported the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack versus powder cocaine, which produced staggering racial injustice in sentencing and boosted funding for drug-law enforcement.

Clinton championed the idea of a federal “three strikes” law in his 1994 State of the Union address and, months later, signed a $30 billion crime bill that created dozens of new federal capital crimes, mandated life sentences for some three-time offenders, and authorized more than $16 billion for state prison grants and the expansion of police forces. The legislation was hailed by mainstream-media outlets as a victory for the Democrats, who “were able to wrest the crime issue from the Republicans and make it their own.”

When Clinton left office in 2001, the United States had the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Human Rights Watch reported that in seven states, African Americans constituted 80 to 90 percent of all drug offenders sent to prison, even though they were no more likely than whites to use or sell illegal drugs. Prison admissions for drug offenses reached a level in 2000 for African Americans more than 26 times the level in 1983. All of the presidents since 1980 have contributed to mass incarceration, but as Equal Justice Initiative founder Bryan Stevenson recently observed, “President Clinton’s tenure was the worst.”

Some might argue that it’s unfair to judge Hillary Clinton for the policies her husband championed years ago. But Hillary wasn’t picking out china while she was first lady. She bravely broke the mold and redefined that job in ways no woman ever had before. She not only campaigned for Bill; she also wielded power and significant influence once he was elected, lobbying for legislation and other measures. That record, and her statements from that era, should be scrutinized. In her support for the 1994 crime bill, for example, she used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. “They are not just gangs of kids anymore,” she said. “They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

Both Clintons now express regret over the crime bill, and Hillary says she supports criminal-justice reforms to undo some of the damage that was done by her husband’s administration. But on the campaign trail, she continues to invoke the economy and country that Bill Clinton left behind as a legacy she would continue. So what exactly did the Clinton economy look like for black Americans? Taking a hard look at this recent past is about more than just a choice between two candidates. It’s about whether the Democratic Party can finally reckon with what its policies have done to African-American communities, and whether it can redeem itself and rightly earn the loyalty of black voters.

* * *

An oft-repeated myth about the Clinton administration is that although it was overly tough on crime back in the 1990s, at least its policies were good for the economy and for black unemployment rates. The truth is more troubling. As unemployment rates sank to historically low levels for white Americans in the 1990s, the jobless rate among black men in their 20s who didn’t have a college degree rose to its highest level ever. This increase in joblessness was propelled by the skyrocketing incarceration rate.

Why is this not common knowledge? Because government statistics like poverty and unemployment rates do not include incarcerated people. As Harvard sociologist Bruce Western explains: “Much of the optimism about declines in racial inequality and the power of the US model of economic growth is misplaced once we account for the invisible poor, behind the walls of America’s prisons and jails.” When Clinton left office in 2001, the true jobless rate for young, non-college-educated black men (including those behind bars) was 42 percent. This figure was never reported. Instead, the media claimed that unemployment rates for African Americans had fallen to record lows, neglecting to mention that this miracle was possible only because incarceration rates were now at record highs. Young black men weren’t looking for work at high rates during the Clinton era because they were now behind bars—out of sight, out of mind, and no longer counted in poverty and unemployment statistics.

To make matters worse, the federal safety net for poor families was torn to shreds by the Clinton administration in its effort to “end welfare as we know it.” In his 1996 State of the Union address, given during his re-election campaign, Clinton declared that “the era of big government is over” and immediately sought to prove it by dismantling the federal welfare system known as Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC). The welfare-reform legislation that he signed—which Hillary Clinton ardently supported then and characterized as a success as recently as 2008—replaced the federal safety net with a block grant to the states, imposed a five-year lifetime limit on welfare assistance, added work requirements, barred undocumented immigrants from licensed professions, and slashed overall public welfare funding by $54 billion (some was later restored).

They are not just gangs of kids anymore…they are ‘super-predators.’ —Hillary Clinton, speaking in support of the 1994 crime bill

Experts and pundits disagree about the true impact of welfare reform, but one thing seems clear: Extreme poverty doubled to 1.5 million in the decade and a half after the law was passed. What is extreme poverty? US households are considered to be in extreme poverty if they are surviving on cash incomes of no more than $2 per person per day in any given month. We tend to think of extreme poverty existing in Third World countries, but here in the United States, shocking numbers of people are struggling to survive on less money per month than many families spend in one evening dining out. Currently, the United States, the richest nation on the planet, has one of the highest child-poverty rates in the developed world.

Despite claims that radical changes in crime and welfare policy were driven by a desire to end big government and save taxpayer dollars, the reality is that the Clinton administration didn’t reduce the amount of money devoted to the management of the urban poor; it changed what the funds would be used for. Billions of dollars were slashed from public-housing and child-welfare budgets and transferred to the mass-incarceration machine. By 1996, the penal budget was twice the amount that had been allocated to food stamps. During Clinton’s tenure, funding for public housing was slashed by $17 billion (a reduction of 61 percent), while funding for corrections was boosted by $19 billion (an increase of 171 percent), according to sociologist Loïc Wacquant “effectively making the construction of prisons the nation’s main housing program for the urban poor.”

Bill Clinton championed discriminatory laws against formerly incarcerated people that have kept millions of Americans locked in a cycle of poverty and desperation. The Clinton administration eliminated Pell grants for prisoners seeking higher education to prepare for their release, supported laws denying federal financial aid to students with drug convictions, and signed legislation imposing a lifetime ban on welfare and food stamps for anyone convicted of a felony drug offense—an exceptionally harsh provision given the racially biased drug war that was raging in inner cities.

Perhaps most alarming, Clinton also made it easier for public-housing agencies to deny shelter to anyone with any sort of criminal history (even an arrest without conviction) and championed the “one strike and you’re out” initiative, which meant that families could be evicted from public housing because one member (or a guest) had committed even a minor offense. People released from prison with no money, no job, and nowhere to go could no longer return home to their loved ones living in federally assisted housing without placing the entire family at risk of eviction. Purging “the criminal element” from public housing played well on the evening news, but no provisions were made for people and families as they were forced out on the street. By the end of Clinton’s presidency, more than half of working-age African-American men in many large urban areas were saddled with criminal records and subject to legalized discrimination in employment, housing, access to education, and basic public benefits—relegated to a permanent second-class status eerily reminiscent of Jim Crow.

It is difficult to overstate the damage that’s been done. Generations have been lost to the prison system; countless families have been torn apart or rendered homeless; and a school-to-prison pipeline has been born that shuttles young people from their decrepit, underfunded schools to brand-new high-tech prisons.

* * *

It didn’t have to be like this. As a nation, we had a choice. Rather than spending billions of dollars constructing a vast new penal system, those billions could have been spent putting young people to work in inner-city communities and investing in their schools so they might have some hope of making the transition from an industrial to a service-based economy. Constructive interventions would have been good not only for African Americans trapped in ghettos, but for blue-collar workers of all colors. At the very least, Democrats could have fought to prevent the further destruction of black communities rather than ratcheting up the wars declared on them.

Of course, it can be said that it’s unfair to criticize the Clintons for punishing black people so harshly, given that many black people were on board with the “get tough” movement too. It is absolutely true that black communities back then were in a state of crisis, and that many black activists and politicians were desperate to get violent offenders off the streets. What is often missed, however, is that most of those black activists and politicians weren’t asking only for toughness. They were also demanding investment in their schools, better housing, jobs programs for young people, economic-stimulus packages, drug treatment on demand, and better access to healthcare. In the end, they wound up with police and prisons. To say that this was what black people wanted is misleading at best.

By 1996, the penal budget was twice the amount that had been allocated to food stamps.

To be fair, the Clintons now feel bad about how their politics and policies have worked out for black people. Bill says that he “overshot the mark” with his crime policies; and Hillary has put forth a plan to ban racial profiling, eliminate the sentencing disparities between crack and cocaine, and abolish private prisons, among other measures.

But what about a larger agenda that would not just reverse some of the policies adopted during the Clinton era, but would rebuild the communities decimated by them? If you listen closely here, you’ll notice that Hillary Clinton is still singing the same old tune in a slightly different key. She is arguing that we ought not be seduced by Bernie’s rhetoric because we must be “pragmatic,” “face political realities,” and not get tempted to believe that we can fight for economic justice and win. When politicians start telling you that it is “unrealistic” to support candidates who want to build a movement for greater equality, fair wages, universal healthcare, and an end to corporate control of our political system, it’s probably best to leave the room.

This is not an endorsement for Bernie Sanders, who after all voted for the 1994 crime bill. I also tend to agree with Ta-Nehisi Coates that the way the Sanders campaign handled the question of reparations is one of many signs that Bernie doesn’t quite get what’s at stake in serious dialogues about racial justice. He was wrong to dismiss reparations as “divisive,” as though centuries of slavery, segregation, discrimination, ghettoization, and stigmatization aren’t worthy of any specific acknowledgement or remedy.

But recognizing that Bernie, like Hillary, has blurred vision when it comes to race is not the same thing as saying their views are equally problematic. Sanders opposed the 1996 welfare-reform law. He also opposed bank deregulation and the Iraq War, both of which Hillary supported, and both of which have proved disastrous. In short, there is such a thing as a lesser evil, and Hillary is not it.

The biggest problem with Bernie, in the end, is that he’s running as a Democrat—as a member of a political party that not only capitulated to right-wing demagoguery but is now owned and controlled by a relatively small number of millionaires and billionaires. Yes, Sanders has raised millions from small donors, but should he become president, he would also become part of what he has otherwise derided as “the establishment.” Even if Bernie’s racial-justice views evolve, I hold little hope that a political revolution will occur within the Democratic Party without a sustained outside movement forcing truly transformational change. I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself.

LIKE THIS? GET MORE OF OUR BEST REPORTING AND ANALYSIS

Of course, the idea of building a new political party terrifies most progressives, who understandably fear that it would open the door for a right-wing extremist to get elected. So we play the game of lesser evils. This game has gone on for decades. W.E.B. Du Bois, the eminent scholar and co-founder of the NAACP, shocked many when he refused to play along with this game in the 1956 election, defending his refusal to vote on the grounds that “there is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I do or say.” While the true losers and winners of this game are highly predictable, the game of lesser evils makes for great entertainment and can now be viewed 24 hours a day on cable-news networks. Hillary believes that she can win this game in 2016 because this time she’s got us, the black vote, in her back pocket—her lucky card.

She may be surprised to discover that the younger generation no longer wants to play her game. Or maybe not. Maybe we’ll all continue to play along and pretend that we don’t know how it will turn out in the end. Hopefully, one day, we’ll muster the courage to join together in a revolutionary movement with people of all colors who believe that basic human rights and economic, racial, and gender justice are not unreasonable, pie-in-the-sky goals. After decades of getting played, the sleeping giant just might wake up, stretch its limbs, and tell both parties: Game over. Move aside. It’s time to reshuffle this deck.

Michelle AlexanderMichelle Alexander is a legal scholar, human rights advocate, and author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (The New Press).

Great article. Now Michelle needs to write another one titled, "Does Barack Obama Deserve the Black Vote"?

(56)(20)

C M Naimsays:

July 27, 2016 at 9:56 am

So who actually "deserves" the Black vote in this election? Or, for that matter, can we look back and argue that Obama "deserved" the vote of confidence he received from his supporters of all hues? Seriously, if you are arguing for systemic changes the time to begin would be after the swearing in 2017. My vote for the Democrats would be a vote against Trump and all that he stands for; that it would go to help Hilary Clinton is of secondary significance.

(36)(57)

Michael Reynoldssays:

April 7, 2016 at 3:46 pm

I can't believe people are trying to shift the responsibility of oneself and the commission of crimes to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The fact remains that crimes were committed and the drug epidemic was getting out of control. Communities were being taken over by drug dealers and users. The crime bill had a lot of good things in it as well like the violence against women act, the assault weapons ban, federal death penalty act, driver's privacy protection act, community oriented policing, three strikes you're out, Elimination of inmate education. It seems black folks and critics of the Clinton's focus only on the Elimination of inmate education and the three strikes and you're out part of the bill. The commission of a crime begins with a choice. If you were around in the 90's you'd know that President Clinton had to work with a republican controlled congress. Don't forget the middle class had record levels of prosperity in the 90's. Articles like this that paint a narrow picture with limited facts does nothing but keep people in the dark about real problems facing our community.

(111)(229)

Craig Holmansays:

August 13, 2017 at 11:09 pm

A comment on the Clinton era. The War on Drugs started long before Clinton came to office. Refer back to the Nixon presidency. BUT Clinton did nothing to turn around an already devastating problem of incarceration for the black community. Your comment about "the commission of a crime begins with a choice" was laughable. Justice is not blind in this regard, Compare the justice for those using crack cocaine versus cocaine powder, i.e. the use of drugs by the poor versus the rich white elite. The prison population exploded. It did not solve the problem. Leaving prison with little opportunity and more barriers only prolongs the criminal stage for further incarceration. I would also agree with Michelle Alexander's comment about 'welfare reform'. It was a disaster and most relevant to the lives of children. And last one thing that was not referred to was the abolishment of Glass-Stegall bill that had protected Americans from the risk of the greedy financial industry thus setting the stage for 2008 debacle. During Clinton's years there were a few positives but as whole, it certainly did not do any favors to the black community. Thank you Michelle Alexander.

(4)(1)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

July 28, 2016 at 2:41 pm

Assuming that the mother had a healthy and calm pregnancy, if we swapped the black male infant born to any teenager living in the typical urban jungle, with the male infant born to a white teen whose parents both were pulling down six-figure incomes and living in some plush suburb, twenty-one years later, which young man would be most likely to be hustling dope on some city street corner, and which would be close to graduation from a prestigious college?

Don’t talk to me about outcomes that young adults produce unless we account for all the details that shaped their environment and opportunities during the years that proceeded.

(90)(12)

Robert Brennansays:

April 5, 2016 at 12:49 pm

Ms. Alexander, I would like to commend you on a fascinating read. Thank U so much.
With respect,
RB

(151)(32)

Michael Sanderssays:

April 3, 2016 at 7:30 am

can we admit there were bunch of misguided brothers trying to be the next scarface in the 90's during the crack wars. I was living in Baltimore working in DC when Wayne Perry and others were killing folks wholesale in DC. I saw fools killing women over 50 dollar crack debts in St Louis.
then folks were saying in inner city Baltimore in the late 70's that they needed to cut the young girls off easy welfare because folks saw what was happening,I heard it from all kinds of folks in the neighborhood. The worst guys in town were knocking up young dumb chicks and bailing.

(58)(21)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

July 28, 2016 at 2:41 pm

Assuming that the mother had a healthy and calm pregnancy, if we swapped the black male infant born to any teenager living in the typical urban jungle, with the male infant born to a white teen whose parents both were pulling down six-figure incomes and living in some plush suburb, twenty-one years later, which young man would be most likely to be hustling dope on some city street corner, and which would be close to graduation from a prestigious college?

Don’t talk to me about outcomes that young adults produce unless we account for all the details that shaped their environment and opportunities during the years that proceeded.

(15)(11)

Laura Wienersays:

March 14, 2016 at 9:27 am

Michelle, Thank you so very much for this well written article. I just go crazy knowing how our black brothers and sisters are being duped by Hillary Clinton -- and our white people, too.

I don't understand why people don't look up "Clinton Foundation Scandals" or something similar on the internet. You know the Clintons take in billions, many times for unethical or criminal reasons (like arms deals for African nations that do not observe human rights) AND of every $10 only $1 goes to charity. The rest is for "administration."

Also, it's discouraging when you learn that almost all of the mainstream media have donated huge sums to the Clinton Foundation and her super pac (MSNBC, CNN, NBC, etc.). Without worldwide prayers and a true miracle, BERNIE doesn't stand a chance.

Bernie is the one who is furious about what police are doing to blacks and about our racially biased criminal justice system. He's been preaching about it for a very long time. But, he can't fix it as one man alone. That's why he says we need a political revolution of the people.

Please people, research the Clinton Foundation and all the traitorshhip, unethical, illegal, inhumane things the Clintons have done. How do people think they became billionaires so quickly? I hate to mention this,, because I am really, truly not a conspiratorist -- but just google "Clinton death list." See what happens when people get in their way. Over 70 suicides by people associated with the Clintons. One poor fellow even shot himself in the head twice.

You can weigh in on how Democrats pick their super delegates here: http://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/demand-democratic-superdelegates-represent-their-constituents-at-the-national-convention

(27)(8)

Nancy Churchillsays:

March 7, 2016 at 12:19 pm

Thank you for this great article. I read through the comments, and didn't find reference to what I think is the elephant in the room (no pun intended), that the Bernie campaign is trying to address: The housing bubble that precipitated the crash that created the Great Recession was done mostly on the backs of people of color. The bankers who profited from preying on the black communities got bailed out to the tune of trillions of taxpayer dollars, their victims mostly lost their homes. The perpetrators were never even indicted by the Obama administration, which had been tight with Wall Street (Treasury Sec., et al) from the beginning. His AG, Eric Holder, came from a law firm that represented international financial companies, including those on Wall Street, and returned after retirement to that same firm. Our current Democratic "Establishment" is as closely aligned with Wall Street as the Republicans. The ACA was a huge gift to the insurance industry, whom Obama had also negotiated with while a Senator in Illinois. After that negotiation, he admitted on the Illinois Senate floor, "we changed [the single payer healthcare bill]" he had sponsored. "We changed it a lot," to one that was no longer Single Payer. Nor did he fight for Single Payer as President. So Bernie wants to fight for it, and Hillary wants to tweak the ACA around the edges. In the end, it is we the people who will have to demand the changes we deserve, and we deserve Single Payer, and only Bernie will help us fight for that. Which brings us to the issue of picking our nominee: the DNC leadership should allow voters a fair shot at picking the nominee, the way it's rigged is found in this article: here: https://getpocket.com/a/read/1216376239, "Blue-state Bernie and the DNC’s Plutocratic “Victory” Rules." To say Democrats are not as bad as Republicans is missing the point. If we the people can't force our government to be one that is "of the people, by the people and for the people," then it is not a democracy, and we only have ourselves to blame. We have to do much more than vote, we have to lean on the leaders in the Democratic party to be true to its small "d" democratic principles, and give us a fair primary. Or it must die as a party just like Republicans. Change from within, or without. But no more catering to Wall Street. Electing Bernie will go a long way to ending that.

(127)(34)

Peter Whitesays:

March 5, 2016 at 10:19 am

Articles like this is why I read the Nation. Bravo, Michelle Alexander! I am not surprised you got so many comments. I've read some of them and would like to respond to Lara De Luz, Maria Schafer, Gordon Spencer, and Kay Sieverding. Re: African American support for Clinton: they are voting for the devil they know rather than the one they don't. They remember Jesse Jackson's two ill-fated campaigns and realize Sanders is much more like him than Clinton and so, while she doesn't deserve it, Clinton has gotten their votes. To Kay, I know firsthand what you have gone through and there is no justice in American courts for ordinary people. That system is even more corrupt than our politics, if that is possible.

(80)(22)

Michael Sanderssays:

April 3, 2016 at 7:32 am

yep we know who Hillary is and I suspect the GOP wants Bernie because they think they can beat him

(34)(25)

Paul De Jongsays:

February 29, 2016 at 3:29 pm

I agree with everything this article says except the idea of starting a new party. Starting a new party is a great way to siphon off the dissenting group, isolate them and then simply ignore everything they have to say. A better model is the one the Tea-Party is using: infiltrate and dominate. Bernie Sanders would make this infiltration real. We have only had two chances like this since the WWII, Henry A. Wallace and Jimmy Carter. We blew both of them, so let's not repeat the same mistake now!

(77)(22)

Gordon Spencersays:

March 1, 2016 at 2:55 pm

Hmmmmm.... I like the argument. However, you do realize that the Tea-Party movement was the catalyst to the present demise of the Republican Party. They have splintered and fractured the party to the point that it looks like a broken vase scattered all over the floor. It's dying (gruesomely if you ask me) right in front of our eyes, thanks to our United States Tea Party Movement. The suggestion that you scrap it and start over is consistent with the radical philosophy of the movement. The only thing I will add is that a new party only has a fighting chance with money. A superpac endorsing the movement is the only way for roots to grow and have sustainability. Bernie is the seed no doubt, but do you see what he is up against? Brainwashed complacency. Its a brick wall, and to infiltrate from inside will inevitably cause the same type of chaos and discord experiencing by the Republican Party.

(29)(12)

Cynthia De Luzsays:

February 28, 2016 at 9:31 am

Re: Michelle Alexander’s Article

I agree with Michelle’s Alexander’s assessment of Hillary Clinton. African Americans need to consider one fundamental point regarding the Clintons. How did we fare after the 8 year long Bill and Hillary Dynasty? Michelle eviscerates the myths and exposes the “new democrats,” which are merely corporatists operating under the thin veneer of progressivism, but all the while, pushing policies that further disenfranchise poor blacks. The Clinton record speaks for itself, especially at a time when some of the biggest names from Wall Street were part and parcel of President Clinton’s Cabinet. This explains how and why Glass Stiegel was dismantled, an act no less devastating than the ill-fated Citizens United that followed later from a Court seeking to expand its reach, even beyond God. While the policies Bill pushed (with Hillary’s help) hurt a lot of whites in America, for blacks the roller-coaster ride has been utterly devastating. Too, Bill’s Presidency was ravished by one scandal after another, which is why I’m not surprised Hillary is currently under yet another investigation from her stint as Secretary of State. Apparently, folks at the State Department were strong armed into cutting out parts of a report that could have harmed Hillary’s chances for a presidential bid.

To be perfectly honest, I didn’t really see anything given Hillary’s time in the Senate that could be considered ground breaking for blacks, Hispanics, or native people. Too, I’m sure if you ask how the Muslims did during her time as Secretary of State, they will tell you they definitely didn’t fare well, especially when it came to her hawkishness. As an African American grandmother, I’m fully aware how blacks have worshiped the Clintons, for decades, especially blacks on the high end that have a vested interest (like Hillary) in keeping the status quo. I also recall how devastating Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform was, especially for whites that continue to far outnumber blacks on the rolls. Too, let’s not forget Clinton’s tough on crime policies, (Michelle pointed out), which is a huge cash cow for the private prison industry, with its own brand of twenty-first century slavery predicated on draconian policies.

Last but not least, let us not forget those pernicious trade policies of President Clinton, which have led to a comatose American economy, wherein millions of American workers have been harmed. Meanwhile, at the other end of the stratified spectrum urban communities of color have been completely upended, exposing them to untold exploitation, privatization, and enormous health risks, on a scale not seen before landmark Civil Rights Legislation. No, Hillary wasn’t President, yet, but it was clear she backed her man on all of the above policies, and did it with a smile. Indeed, she was no shrinking violet, she had something to say about everything, and it is all on the record, despite her touted change, today. I resent her populist rhetoric the same way I resented Obama’s. Sorry, but while everyone was tear-choked with emotion over the glory of the first African American President, I had my doubts, which, I regret to say, have come to fruition.

Hillary is a far cry from the war resister she once promoted herself as. Today, she is now a major power broker with the backing of the Bilderberg Group, The Illuminati, The Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations. If the truth be known, there are probably a few Skull and Bones members backing her for good measure, too. I understand Wal-Mart recently donated to one of her super packs; that should suggest something to confused blacks. Meanwhile, the whole world waits to see those speeches from Wall Street that netted Hillary 11 million in fees.

Until Bernie Sanders pitched his hat in the race, Hillary thought she would be shoe-in. She is literally salivating for the Presidency; almost as to suggest I came, I saw, and I won! Her very strong connections to Wall Street make me shudder, especially as a poor black person. She touts herself as being a grandmother, as though we all truly have something in common, but face it; we are as far from Hillary’s world as Pluto is in light years from the Earth. In Hillary’s very rich world, the real people running America have a strategy of keeping people occupied with sensationalism. Things like, “…let’s give them their first black president, to falsely suggest how far we have come in America with respect to the most resistant strain of Ebola style racism, in the world. Now, the powers that be want to give us another thrill, a woman president. What’s the next thrill? People don’t understand how this is all just a distraction from the fact that, yes we got a black man in the Oval Office, while the lynching of blacks, all across America, was off the charts; and black youth, for lack of hope and jobs, were diverted to the prison pipeline. Now, here comes Hillary to save the day while things have gone to hell for women in America, as well. But, can she stop the republican Gestapo from legislating what women can and cannot do with their uteruses to their vaginas?

In closing, there was some recent criticism of Bill Clinton’s involvement with the Haitian earthquake crisis, wherein there have been rumblings about the huge amount of aid that was raised to address the crisis and innuendos of the money not reaching the people on the ground, years later. Some challenged Bill’s assistance to the Haitians, while his own people in his native Arkansas have been seriously ravished by poverty, thanks to a repressed American economy he created. I thought charity began a home. ISIS is not our biggest fear; its politicians like the Clintons that want to maintain the corporate gravy train, while the horrors of “…racism, poverty, and militarism…” ravish a nation.
Lara DeLuz

(216)(29)

Nils Wolfcalesays:

March 11, 2016 at 8:15 am

Wonderful comment! Thank you! Thank you to The Nation for endorsing Bernie!

(42)(20)

Paul De Jongsays:

February 29, 2016 at 3:35 pm

Right on! Thank you!

(46)(16)

Gordon Spencersays:

February 27, 2016 at 8:00 am

While you cant place the sins of the husband upon the wife, you surely cannot also presume that you will get any different. This is solely a matter of trusting her to do different than her husband and she is clearly not trustworthy. That conclusion has been solidified with her refusing to release her wall street transcripts by creatively creating a caveat that a republican must do it first! The reason why a republican is even in this discussion when deciding who is the best democratic candidate is ???? This isn't the UK and the Clintons and the Bushes are not our royal families. Barack was our fresh face, but while he executed a competent and thoughtful presidency, our country has not come any further together but has in fact magnified the clear divides. He clearly didn't champion the causes of african-americans, although I never heard him promise that he would (unlike the Clintons). Look, all I am saying is that if your voting for Hillary because you think you owe her something, the article suggests otherwise. The bigger takeaway from the article however is that its time for somebody in the youth movement to create a new party. Re-engineering the Democratic party , which by the way, is what Bernie is trying to do -- in essence getting a movement going from the inside, is never going to proliferate. There is too much establishment gridlock (all of Hillary's friends (Harry Reid etc.) who have pledged these superdelegates still have a stronghold on the party). The people who really want change or the "Bernieites" would find themselves better in the longrun by just scraping it and starting a new party, maybe "THE PARTY OF ONE"...LOL.. By the time this younger generation becomes our new working class (Maybe four electoral cycles in our future) I believe it will have matured and aged to the point that a party candidate from this neophytic entity could compete on the national stage. The Republican Party is clearly a train wreck (an animal dying right before our very eyes, as demonstrated in the last debate) and the Democratic Party is one which is showing signs of dissension in the ranks as well. Its just a matter of time. If the Bernieites defect from the Democratic Party that party will be a shell of what is once was. I believe somebody is going to emerge to really institutionalize this movement -- BEYOND SANDERS. This movement needs to separate from the Democratic Party, completely, and I believe they will. Believe it or not Barack Obama is the father of this movement although he is really more just an unwitting product of circumstance. Obama was voted in by this younger generation (TWICE) although he never preached a radical revolution (although he was a messenger of change). He was voted in by people who were tired of seeing the same old faces (TRUMP is another example of that on the other side). On the democratic side, Bernie is Barack's successor although he is running within the wrong party. This takes time however, so he has chosen the most plausible path to the whitehouse. Remember, Bernie is truly an independent at heart. TIME TO START REALIZING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS OVER.

(76)(19)

Michael Curriersays:

February 23, 2016 at 12:00 pm

Does Bernie deserve the black vote? After school in Chicago, he retreated to the whitest state in America: have you ever lived there? It is a theme park for white people. He is an example of white flight, leaving the neighborhood with flavor just like millions of other white folks.

(62)(192)

Gordon Spencersays:

February 28, 2016 at 7:56 am

Have you forgotten that Bernie is White? Faulting a white person for deciding to live in Vermont, is to fault any person for choosing where they want to live in this country. And no politician deserves anything. This is all public service. However Bernie is more trustworthy than Hillary, HANDS DOWN, so at the very least if trust is your number 1 priority, votes should inure by default. All of this look at people's record and qualifications is just hogwash. Nobody heard of Barack Obama before he came on the scene -- i.e., he had no record. He had no experiencing in governing and came out with his head still above water after 8 years of disrespect, discord, dismissed and outright dissed -- an unprecedented circumstance. And by the way, If Obama decided to move to the peace and quiet of Vermont after he leaves the oval office, I wouldn't blame him -- after all Vermont is still america. Does Obama need to move to the hood to prove he cares about Black People? Well.. neither does Bernie Sanders.

(142)(21)

Carl And Rosalind Figueroasays:

February 16, 2016 at 1:27 pm

Can somebody please get a copy of this article to John Lewis in Georgia.

(237)(20)

Frank Doughertysays:

February 14, 2016 at 4:44 pm

The comments re Hillary and Bill Clinton are not news to me and I remember Bill's support of NAFTA as a particularly bad choice. I also dislike Hillary's reluctance to commit to any political opinion (like TPP) until she has decided it will help, not hurt, her politically. Bernie has obviously pulled her to the left and now she is trying to take ownership of policies he has espoused for many years, all of which will benefit black Americans and white alike. Hillary, on the other hand, like a chameleon, will revert to type as soon as she is elected. On the other hand, Bernie is far from perfect, but he is honest, principled, and is willing, not just to tell it like it is, but also to try to make it better,

(309)(28)

Dennis Davissays:

February 13, 2016 at 5:45 pm

Wow, I was not expecting a Supreme Court another justice to leave under President Obama, my condolences to the Scalia family for their loss, but I count this as a political gain for us progressives. Sotomeyer, Kagin, now the deciding vote, change is coming sooner than I thought. Now we really

(58)(43)

G Kristian Micciosays:

February 13, 2016 at 4:26 pm

What I find distasteful about this piece and many comments that follow, is the image of HRC subsumed in or cloned from Bill. Marriage is not merger; thought we progressives rejected " femme converted" during the 2nd wave of feminism.

I take issue with Alexander's inability to write a feminist politic but also her misstatements.

ABOUT THE BANKs...
Hillary did much to sound the alarm regarding the collapse of our economy. And while Alexander's piece exhibits a rather curious form of political amnesia, the facts are the facts:

1. Hillary Clinton stated, "As president, I will go beyond Dodd-Frank" calling for financial regulations consistent with those she proposed and supported BEFORE the collapse;

2. The financial bubble started to leak in summer of 2008. Yet HRC Confronted the issues -- particulary the subprime mortgage issues --in March of 2007.! As Politico notes, "Clinton, still a senator at the time, delivered a speech on the volatility of the subprime mortgage market on March 15, 2007, stating "... subprime problems are now creating massive issues on Wall Street, it's a serious problem affecting our housing market and millions of hard-working families." And she didn't just name the problem she gave solutions...
3. HRC called for the expansion of FHA's regulatory power, Opening up options for low income and first-time homebuyers, safeguards against predatory lending practices and regulatory policies to prevent what she saw as potential foreclosures. HRC also called for establishment of national standards regarding mortgage brokers and lenders. AND...HRC sponsored legislation to implement these policies in September 2007.
4. She spoke against derivatives, risky lending practices that contributed to the subprime mortgage crisis, as well as oversight of financial markets to create transparency. Hillary then crafted a six-point plan to regulate the mortgage market & to increase and strengthen consumer protection. Her position cost her some of the Wall Street donors who supported Bill.
5.

And she also pushed for more oversight of financial markets: "So as president, I will move to establish the 21st-century oversight we need in a 21st-century global marketplace. I will call for an immediate review of these new investment products and for plans to make them more transparent."

This November speech angered some of Clinton’s Wall Street donors, according to the New York Times.

At the tail-end of her campaign, in March 2008 -- still before the financial crisis hit a peak later that summer -- Clinton released a six-point plan to increase financial regulation. The plan included, in part, more oversight of derivatives and other new financial products, establishment of mortgage standards and strengthened some consumer protections.

Alexander either skipped over this, or, worse, didn't know of the initiatives proposed by HRC...more than one year before the faeces hit the rotary, economically speaking.

The Crime Bill? Folks claim she supported it. Well unlike Bernie she didn't vote for it. How could she, she wasn't in the Senate. AND, just the 411...Bernie actually voted for it. Perhaps her non-Congressional support was parallel to his? VAWA funds were tied to the CB. But... No breaks here for her as we have given to him.

And while some believe that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world ( a rather vacant and absurd notion) HRC's hand did not merge with Bill's on signing the CB or any legislation during his tenure in the WH.

Do I think HRC is the ' lesser of two evils," no. And what a debasing analogy! It's not applicable to either Sanders or HRC.

My suggestion? Support who you will but please stop the rather poor, tired ( and quite frankly) sexist comments. HRC is no more the standard bearer for Bill than Bernie is for Karl Marx or Groucho. As my mother would say, " Baste!"

(125)(361)

Anthony Margrafsays:

April 4, 2016 at 12:18 pm

G KRISTIN Right now there are people in the Clinton campaign, not volunteers, close in the campaign who lobbied for powerful interests to water down Dodd Frank and the ACA, this is a fact, Obama made a pledge not to take money from lobbyists in both of his elections, Hillary betrayed that and has received huge amounts from the most powerful corporations in the world, am 79 years old a progressive/ liberal have never seen such an untrustworthy public figure, Hillary's words do not ring true based on her own dishonest record. WAKE UP

(44)(8)

Paula Helenesays:

February 13, 2016 at 2:26 pm

It is worth reminding people that before Bernie entered the race for President he toured the country speaking and listening. He asked whether he should run as a Democrat, or as an Independent. I voted that he should run as a Dem. With potentially 4 Supreme Court seats to fill the next President cannot be a RepublicOn. He vowed to not be a spoiler, and that meant running as a Dem. I am also a Democratic Socialist, so I was never a fan of the Clintons. I have for a long time wondered how the Clintons became so admired in the Black community. When I did a little research I only wondered more. There is no reason. On almost every issue all non-millionaires (the Clintons are millionaires), will do better with Bernie. But nothing matters more than seriously addressing climate change. Perhaps you do not understand how bad it is, and neither do the Clintons. There is a reason Bill McKibben (350.org), has been touring around with Bernie. In closing I must say that without consistent participation from citizens, Bernie can only try, but with citizen participation he can succeed with policies for we-the-people.

(270)(32)

Rodger Kroellsays:

February 13, 2016 at 3:59 am

Michelle Alexander, legal scholar and author of THE NEW JIM CROW: MASS INCARCERATION IN THE AGE OF COLORBLINDNESS, slams Hillary Clinton as a race-baiting hypocrite and champion of the corporate elite.

For Example, she points out that Hillary “used racially coded rhetoric to cast black children as animals. ‘They are not just gangs of kids anymore,’ she said. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”

She championed the federal “three strikes” law” and, along with her husband, is largely responsible for creating the Black “school-to-prison pipeline.”

(208)(36)

Robert Seidelsays:

February 12, 2016 at 9:06 pm

I am glad to see Professor Alexander weigh in on this debate from her perspective as the author of the definitive history of black incarcerations and their effects. I have never understood why the Clintons felt they earned the Afro-American vote. I now know they did not. Bernie gets my vote, not least because he is honest about who he is and what he wants. and because he has the courage to do what Obama could or would not do to back up his beliefs.

(244)(28)

Kay Sieverdingsays:

February 12, 2016 at 12:57 pm

The blogging software eliminated my paragraph breaks sorry

(13)(1)

Kay Sieverdingsays:

February 12, 2016 at 12:56 pm

When regular people have a problem with discrimination or deprivation of rights, they are supposed to go to the Federal Courts. S.C. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote "The 1871 Congress intended § 1 to "throw open the doors of the United States courts" to individuals who were threatened with, or who had suffered, the deprivation of constitutional rights, id. at 376 (remarks of Rep. Lowe), and to provide these individuals immediate access to the federal courts. Patsy v. Board of Regents of State of Florida, 457 U.S. 496 (1982)"

The problem is that it costs $100K to start a federal lawsuit if you get a lawyer. And in an employment discrimination claim, winnings are usually taxable but attorney costs for the plaintiff are not usually deductible so the practicality of a contingent lawsuit is questionable. Lawyers don't have to say why they don't accept a case, but it can be politically infeasible to assist in a suit against a powerful defendant. So the 2% can go to court to get their rights but the rest of us must either choose to give up or go "pro se".

It's not supposed to be that difficult to conduct a pro se lawsuit. 40 years ago it was done and pro ses were getting jury trials and winning damages. Now, it should be much easier because of on-line resources.

However, most federal courts have entrenched anti pro se prejudice. They think that if a litigant doesn't have an attorney they are wasting the courts time. In fact, over 22,000 non prisoner pro se lawsuits were filed annually in federal court and for some years 100% of them were "dismissed" usually without any findings of fact. Part of this is that they were trying to make it harder for prisoners. U.S. Courts did a study of prisoner complaints in Southern California and found that many of them were meritorious. Prisoners protested the reliability of eye witness identification, deprivation of medical services to prisoners, overcrowding and mistreatment of prisoners.

Many federal courts have systemic procedures that disfavor pro se. Congress requires that district federal courts offer mediation, but most will not allow "pro se" participation. Circuit courts frequently prohibit joint appendixes when one litigant is pro se so the courts rely on the appendixes of the defense counsel. When I was in the 10th Circuit, they left my objections out. I've heard that the circuit panels don't review pro se cases, that everything that is written about these cases comes from one or two court clerks. The 10th used to have a written policy that pro ses couldn't speak to the judges.

Two thirds of all petitions to the Supreme Court are from pro ses, over 6,000 a year, most of whom claim that they didn't receive the due process that they were supposed to. The Supreme Court doesn't even report on these petitions. They all get thrown out because the process by which they pick is totally secret.

Although practically everyone can save their file as a pdf and upload it, many federal courts do not recognize that as a right and insist that pro se documents be only scanned paper files. The result is that it is inconvenient for the judge to copy and paste from the pro se papers so they rely on the attorney papers only. Sometimes they don't accept pro se documents and just send them back without putting them into PACER. Sometimes district court judges arbitrarily change the rules. For instance, when I filed for partial summary judgment in District of Col 02-cv-1950, the Court ordered the defense to ignore my motions and not respond. And sometimes courts dismiss with prejudice even though there was no violation of discovery rules and it is possible that the claim can be represented. Another dirty trick is when the defendant asks the circuit court for "summary affirmance" so they don't review the appeal.

Another problem is that lawyers can file for Rule 11 attorney fee shifting if their opponent misquotes a law or misrepresents a fact, but pro ses can't do anything so the insurance defense lawyers frequently misrepresent the law and the facts. Attorneys sometimes represent that an old opinion is binding even though there are subsequent Supreme Court opinions. I found I could quote the S.C. but they would pretend that I hadn't and that the opinions didn't exist. I couldn't get a judgment in a form that included the facts. For instance, it was claimed that I owed $100K in attorney fee shifting but there wasn't a court order that described the sanctioned conduct as required by Rule 11(c)(6).

The 10th Circuit has almost 800 people, including myself, on a list of people who have lost their right to represent themselves in court. You don't get on this list thru Rule 56, an injunction. The Rules Enabling Act requires that all court procedure be formally pre published with opportunity for comment. But there is no published procedure for the issuing or removing of "filing restrictions". In fact, I think that not one of the almost 800 people who lost their rights to represent themselves in court were able to keep their rights. Even federal prisoners convicted of securities fraud or murder are allowed to represent themselves in federal court, but somehow the courts decide that certain pro se plaintiffs can't file papers they write. That always means that they can't get a lawyer either because lawyers don't want trouble with judges. It's a way of burying claims.

Prisoners face the problem that even when they have a public defender, he or she might not understand their case. Prisoners should be able to help their attorneys. All federal prisoners are held in county jails under contract with DoJ until after they are convicted. The County jails usually don't have law library access even though it is the un-convicted who need it the most.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are part of Big Law. Big Law doesn't want pro se litigants because 1) they want more work for lawyers and 2) big law represents defendants and they want fewer lawsuits, they want to deny justice.

Hillary Clinton is associated with Carolyn Lamm. In order for me to support Clinton, she would have to renounce Lamm and Lamm's anti pro se acts. I filed a section 1983 lawsuit for First Amendment Retaliation and Violation of Equal Protection in which I argued that the policies and publications of the ABA were a proximate cause to local government corruption. I argued that all the lawyers in Steamboat Springs Colorado were aware that neighbors have rights to enforce the zoning through nuisance law and that I was a victim of selective enforcement of city ordinances and official extortion but they all pretended otherwise. And I said that my lawyer was intimidated by other lawyers and that that was compounded by ABA publications suggesting that lawyers can't be sued for fraud, defamation, intimidation or obstruction. I said that once you are injured by an attorney, ABA policies discourage other attorneys from representing you. And I pointed out that the McGee Commission suggested that the bar associations should put flyers on attorney regulation in courthouses but the Colorado Bar Association never did. I pointed out that the attorney regulation counsels are completely ineffective for victims. My Steamboat attorney William Hibbard sent me a letter finding no problems with my complaint, which included his name and the intimidation allegations, and he said that my theories about the bar were at least "interesting". The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favor of a pro se litigant and found her lawsuit against the Bar Association of Quebec to be brave. See Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17, 2004 SCC 36.

When I sued the ABA didn't respond to my motion for summary judgment and they sent a letter to my judge, Edward "Naughty" Nottingham, asking him to excuse them and have his clerk call their lawyer. I'm convinced that everything would have been different if they had just responded to my summary judgment motion.

I ended up suing the ABA again. They hired Hillary's friend Carolyn Lamm as the chief lawyer against me. This is a woman who was billing $950 per hour 10 years ago and was an ABA president for one year. I think Carolyn Lamm is Hillary's friend, ask her.

Carolyn Lamm filed in federal court:

"Finally, the ABA brings to the Court's attention that on Friday September 2, 2005 the Colorado District Court held Plaintiff Kay Sieverding in civil contempt for violating that court's injunction against further pro se filings by Plaintiffs related to this matter and refusing to withdraw this and other actions filed after the Colorado District Court judgment was issued. Ms. Sieverding was remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal and remains incarcerated pending her voluntary dismissal of the remaining actions." I was deprived the bail hearing guaranteed by the 8th Amendment and the Bail Reform Act. They could not have held me without bail because I wasn't a danger or a flight risk. The witnesses against me weren't sworn and I wasn't allowed to cross them.
I was told in court that I didn't have a right to an attorney. I was denied an attorney despite my requests for one when I was detained for 124 consecutive days. And the jail didn't have any books on habeas corpus, motions, or federal procedure.

Someone who is reading this or someone working for the Nation should seize an opportunity to ask Hillary about her commitment to procedural due process rights in federal courts for self represented litigants so the 98% can go to court for an airing of disputed facts and the rights they are supposed to have.

Rights don't trickle down. Access to court is the foundation from which all rights flow. And access to court includes the right to file papers and to have every clause in the Rules of Civil Procedure observed.

(74)(25)

Maria Schafersays:

February 11, 2016 at 7:06 pm

This is a highly misleading headline, given that so much of the piece focuses on Bill Clinton's policies of the '90s, policies that he has already acknowledged harmed African Americans, and for which he's basically apologized. This type of analysis may be inevitable, as that time period recedes, but I fail to see how you can put blame on Hillary Clinton for these policies, and in fact, the article barely gives her a mention. This entire section is all about Bill, and his policies. But the headline screams that she does not deserve African American support. This is as bad as the misogynistic stuff the so-called mainstream media puts out. There's plenty to be critical of, but your piece, at least in this area, really misses the mark.

Hillary, Bernie, or anyone running for President must be questioned about past mistakes and inconsistencies; that's fair. But trying to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her husband's administration and its policies is worse than unfair. It's a double burden that no one else running is asked to take on, and she shouldn't have to assume responsibility for the policies of her husband's administration. The only thing I could find that she gave voice to during the Clinton administration on this topic was an affirmation of the three strikes policy, which, at the time, was the conventional wisdom and hardly earth shaking. Once she was out of the White House she spoke out about mass incarceration and has worked to change such policies. (Dennis Davis' comments concerning your piece provides specifics on her approach to criminal justice reform, which I won't repeat here). Her positions on this topic, to me, appear thoughtful and rational.

I am highly disappointed by this piece, which seems to have as its basis a need to tar Hillary Clinton in any way possible, and in particular with the sins of her husband's administration. She's endured enough because of Bill Clinton; however much she may have been a vocal supporter of his policies, she did no more than any spouse of a politician. I don't see anyone clamoring for Michelle Obama, or Laura Bush, or even Barbara Bush to refute their respective husbands' policies, nor are they blamed for them. Hillary has been a Senator and Secretary of State. It is perfectly reasonable to question positions and actions she took while in those roles; it is not fair to tar her with policies she had no hand in crafting.

As for her positions relative to those of Senator Sanders, she is again, doubly tarred, by you and many others, for not being left enough. It's a legitimate critique to question the solutions she's put forward as insufficient, or not bold enough, but at the same time, it would be completely surprising for someone grounded in pragmatism, as she has pretty much been her entire life, to dispense with that attitude because it is politically expedient (and there's little doubt she would be better off in this campaign season if she could offer a less establishment point of view). But if she did this, the critique, also legitimate, would be that she was completely pandering to millennials and others who now support Sanders. She is,at least in this, being her authentic and true self in talking about pragmatism and the need for compromise, both to maintain progress achieved by the Obama administration, and to go beyond it to achieve additional progressive goals.

The base motives you attribute to Hillary Clinton seem off base. She is admittedly a highly flawed candidate, but I fail to see evidence of an evil conspiracy that you imply she is behind to deny blacks civil rights, or to impede the left's agenda. She is definitely cautious, pragmatic, and clearly not a revolutionary. She is indeed very Obama like in much of her policy orientation. She has also seriously miscalculated her appeal to younger voters as she has sought to bring together the coalition that brought Barack Obama to power, but that is not a sign of sinister motives. Why wouldn't she do that? We want to retain the Presidency, so millennials and other younger voters are critical. She must earn that support, and so far, she's missed the mark. But that doesn't make her evil or her intentions misplaced.

Is Senator Sanders really that much different? Where African Americans are concerned, he, too, is trying to figure out how he can reconcile decades of basically ignoring civil rights and the concerns of African Americans. Does that make him any better than she? I have to disagree with your conclusion that he is the lesser of two evils. And also, why is either of them evil? In the end, it is a coalition that will bring about change, and compromise that will be necessary to enact progressive goals.

Hillary Clinton will not, and never was going to, lead a revolution. She is someone who has stayed within the Democratic party and made compromises to get things done. She is an acknowledged centrist. But the idea that it's Bernie who is the "lesser evil" is flawed. As you point out, whoever becomes president will ultimately become part of the establishment. No candidate will ever be completely what any group or even movement wants, so compromise is necessary. Where compromise is concerned, Hillary Clinton is the consummate compromiser. Which means she may actually have a shot at getting something progressive done. Senator Sanders record of accomplishment is relatively thin, given his long career as a legislator, so the notion that he would fare any better as President, with Congress in the hands of Republicans, most likely for the foreseable future or until gerrymandering can be dealt with, does not inspire confidence.

The current political process is also not just her game. It's the game currently in place. It will be difficult to change this game, since the money that has rigged the system will not give up without a nasty fight. As Clinton herself has pointed out, the Citizens United decision, one she is firmly against, resulted because of a film made about her. Changing control of state houses and getting people into legislative positions right down to the local level will be necessary if we are to get the corruption out and lessen the impact of money in politics. But this is also a process, not something that will happen in a year, or even two or three. To claim otherwise is to be in fantasy land. Nor is gerrymandering that puts control of Congress into the hands of those who won a minority of votes in the last presidential election likely to change soon, either. So we're stuck with flawed candidates and a need to compromise.

I come back to the title of this piece. Hillary Clinton is a candidate who does not have many friends on the left. But she has put forward concrete ideas for how to improve the lives of minorities, including African Americans, with specific proposals for how to enact change, and stop mass incarceration. And the black vote will have to go somewhere. Sanders has not exactly embraced black voters, at least not until extremely recently. Yet his lack of any longstanding policy toward African Americans gets a pass.

I just can't take this piece as seriously as the author intends.

(146)(442)

Gordon Spencersays:

February 28, 2016 at 8:18 am

You should take it seriously. Any politician that has referred to black children as dogs, comes from a place that is scary. Its an "evil" comment, and the fact that it was 25 years ago raises only one question -- can she be trusted today to believe in her that she really cares? Does she? Was the comment an aberration or is there some of that still in her. I don't know, but then casting a vote really means (to a person of color) that your taking a chance. I would hope comments like these are still not in her, but I cant trust her. Don't forget, in the not too distant past, "black" South Carolina abandoned her (just in 2008 -- not 25 years ago), and her husband called congressman Clyborne saying "you bastards". Who else do you think Bill was talking about other than the African American congressman? Would you be married to man who has virtually called the black community a bunch of bastards? Hillary is. For a long time too. And he is our former president talking to people like that. Can you imagine Barack Obama calling up a white congressman talking to him like that because white people wouldn't vote for Michelle? Common sense is speaking to me over your objectivity. Don't you get it? The Clintons think they deserve the black vote!! Who are they? Other than deluded I don't know. The Clintons (Hillary included) are all about the Clintons first and cant be trusted to give a darn about anybody else. You are right (that's why I credit your objective intentions) that Bernie has no longstanding policy towards African Americans. But Bernie never called black kids dogs, so he is really starting out with a leg up. Its really very evil to say that. Speak to that about Bernie not being a lesser evil than a person who speaks like that about our american children.

(39)(18)

Steve Muratoresays:

February 13, 2016 at 1:40 am

The fact that Hillary is intimate with (in bed with) the Private Prison Industrial Complex removes ALL doubt or ambiguity.

She is NOT a friend of any Main Street American, including Blacks.

(250)(33)

Subhash Reddysays:

February 12, 2016 at 2:00 pm

If Hillary is claiming Bill's legacy with Blacks then it is fair enough to tie Hillary with Bill's real legacy. In fact, Bill is on the election circuit blasting Sanders and throwing his full weight behind Hillary. Come on, don't create a wedge between Hillary and Bill now.

INDEED... she thinks she is Queen Elizabeth. I don't fault her however. I really think Bill Clinton is the chief surgeon behind this operation.

(10)(13)

Toni Segersays:

February 11, 2016 at 3:55 pm

I find this attack ad, can't really call it an article, presumptuous and offensive. After savaging both Clintons, the author says she's not endorsing Sanders. In that case, what is the purpose? Someone, after all, is going to be elected. The simplistic ending also offers nothing. Maybe black people will ignore the process? What good would that do? It's very easy to tear down. It's not so easy to build something. I'm from a generation that believed, as I still do, that if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

(112)(379)

Subhash Reddysays:

February 12, 2016 at 2:08 pm

She said she is not endorsing Bernie but it is obvious for whom she will vote, the lesser evil. Nobody knows what is the Solution ultimately! We propose but without any guaranty if that proposal is a solution or an additional problem. It is downright arrogance to proclaim what you did "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Remember the Iraq war and Hillary voted for it thinking that is the solution but it ended up exasperating the problem hundred fold.

(141)(12)

Sher Thomsonsays:

February 11, 2016 at 2:48 pm

One commenter suggests that because Clinton professes different -- humane and democratic -- values now from what she touted and shamefully voiced and acted upon before we should believe 1) she is being truthful and 2) she cares and 3) she would put her full weight of the presidential office behind each of those values and actually make positive changes. I think, if elected, she would make something significant happen at the start, then go on her merry, running for a second term, way.

Her style is to make of herself whatever is needed to keep herself (and Bill) in power.

She had plenty of time to consider her real values for six years when she was on the board of the worst pay-sexist, glass ceiling sexist, union-busting profits-stealing family business in the country, but seems to have done nothing to ameliorate their immoral practices.

Its been widely reported that as S of S she was an enabler of the military coup in Honduras which ousted democratically-elected president Mel Zelaya. Her and Bills close friend, Lanny Davis, was high-priced consultant to the coup. Apparently, the top 'Ten' richest men in Honduras were threatened by Zelaya's attempt at raising the minimum wage.
Participating in an undemocratic, illegal coup against a democratically-elected president is among the lowest of activities from a so-called democracy.

Michelle Alexander
has written a well-researched piece on the Clintons. But the part a out Bernie Sanders having 'voted for the crime bill', leaving out the context in which he made speeches on the floor against it, but voted finally in order to get the funds for women, is, I think, irresponsible.

E xzqĹ

(284)(30)

Dennis Davissays:

February 11, 2016 at 2:52 am

I loved your book, but I'm not so in love with this article. People and times change. What counts is what the candidates say they would like to accomplish for the nation today. Both are for criminal justice reform and offer the similar remedies (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/, https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/) and both are offering to decriminalize marijuana, which has the benefits of being both economic (see Colorado) and criminal justice (turn a convict into an entrepreneur) advancements. I note our current African American President is not on board with this! Given both propose to make approximately the same progress on criminal justice, I'm wondering why the negative slant against Hillary - in the light of her current positions (I would hate to be forever shackled by past positions (let alone those of my spouse) - she did say she was a progressive)? What bothers me most about Mr Sanders is he is a self professed Socialist, his proposal to make college free for everybody (no means testing) will cost what?, and our opposition is ruthless and totally unbounded by any sense of decency or facts - this with a unlimited budget to spend to obtain the 3.1 percent of independents needed to win (remember we only won last time by 52 percent of the vote) by totally destroying Mr Sanders in the general election. The change Mr Sanders is speaking of is needed, but he like President Obama is not an emperor. He will have to deal with a divided congress for years to come - because the youth that are making him so popular today only concern themselves with voting every 4 years, whereas changes needed at the state level to elect more progressive voices is not as 'sexy' as the presidential race and therefore the congress will change only slowly. His call for a 50 state strategy runs right into the gerrymandering wall the keeps the congress red. I want progress, I remember the day MLK was shot. Why? In my view his agenda changed to a more radical - enlarged or revolutionary view that a certain constituency ( that still exists ) was not haveing that much change that quickly. For these reasons we African Americans have to have a progressive voice in the White house. We need it because the the president molds the makeup of the SCOTUS, and with another 8 years we can significantly change the makeup of the SCOTUS, to have two progressive power blocks to do battle with the vestiges of racism hidden behind the republican majority in Congress. The stakes are too high to try too much change too fast.

(96)(356)

Gordon Spencersays:

February 28, 2016 at 8:27 am

Sanders is merely an omen. He cant effectuate the change he so desperately wants. But to endorse the establishment is to ignore the shift. Endorse the change, and stay positive. I agree with the other commentator. You are sounding complacent and brainwashed. Most of the previous generation is. The fact that anybody could consider going backwards to the Clinton Energy because things seemed ok when Bill was president needs to take another look at the article.

(30)(6)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

February 11, 2016 at 4:07 pm

Dennis: I believe your major premise is pathetically naive. You said; " What counts is what the candidates say they would like to accomplish for the nation today." Promises from politicians, and from Hillary Clinton in particular, have zero currency, when there exists a prolonged history of war cheerleading, coup-backing, nation invading, welfare cutting, victim blaming, and Wall Street fellating. Hillary has been exposed as the chameleon, the lizard, she really is.

(376)(41)

David Holmstrom Andsays:

February 10, 2016 at 10:39 pm

Thanks for a great and useful article. I suggest that the same arguments apply to women as to black voters: Clinton's policies have been terrible for them, especially poor women.
I disagree, however, with your views about Sanders running in the Democratic party. I -- and many other progressives -- worked for 20+ years trying to create a viable (ie mass based) independent party. We got nowhere. The best chance we had was with Jesse Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition, and at the time we disagreed with Jackson's decision not to challenge the Dems. However when Bernie asked progressives whether he should run as an independent (and yes, he did ask) I and many others advised him to run as a Democrat. The fact is that most of the potential voters and virtually all of the elected officials that we would need to include to have a truly mass-based party are now in the Democratic Party, and they are not going to leave until we have a real alternative to offer them, not just a protest vote. If Bernie had run as an independent and gotten enough votes to swing the election to the GOP (as people claimed Nader did, though incorrectly) it would have doomed progressive organizing for a decade. On the contrary, running as a Democrat, Bernie is mobilizing both old and new progressives, so even if he loses the nomination we have a base to build on -- a base that will be disillusioned with the Democratic Party, even if we hold our noses and vote for the lesser evil.

(453)(57)

Gordon Spencersays:

February 27, 2016 at 8:14 am

We need a billionaire to fund a superpac! Who will answer the call to create a new progressive party.

(1)(3)

Sandra Riverssays:

February 12, 2016 at 12:23 pm

As a decades-long NYC-based central activist in attempting to build a progressive independent politics, i have to agree. We have much work and several YEARS to realize viable, anti-racist, racially-inclusive and respectful, effective independent electoral movements. The Seattle City-Council Socialist City Council-woman is a s-t-a-r-t. Still, that is Seattle - not NY with a strong African american independent progressive core. And in NY the resistance to explicit anti-racist, racially-inclusive and respect principles has been THE BIGGEST OBSTACLE to effective progressive electoral progress.

(45)(8)

Jim Lewissays:

February 11, 2016 at 12:50 pm

I agree. Besides, the corporate media don't pay attention to third parties. If Bernie had chosen to run as an independent, he would not have tied in Iowa or won in New Hampshire, would not be fêted on national talk shows, and would not be causing consternation at the DNC.

(203)(4)

Donald Rucknagelsays:

February 10, 2016 at 10:25 pm

Ms Alexander:
There already is a progressive third part--the Green Party (gp.org). Check out their web site for their ten key values. Four years ago their candidate for president was Jill Stein. Whoever is our candidate this year, when you cast your vote for her , you tell the duopoly "None of the above".

(79)(97)

Susan Mccurdysays:

February 10, 2016 at 9:38 pm

Reparations are a waste of effort and a burden on the living. They are paying for a dead horse. The past is just what it is. The future is what we need to be concerned with. I disagree with Sander's suggestion that we need free colleges. Instead, we need to re-imagine education and make use of our modern resources to create a more affordable education. One teacher can reach thousands online. Web access is affordable for all, either at the library or through the home. Public brick and mortar campuses are a financial drain on their communities and a future financial drain on their students. Online education would reduce the need for campuses and open learning to each and everyone who thirsts for knowledge, with no penalty on the present and future communities of this country. A pipe dream? Nah. I just read of a trucker who is pursuing his degree online while working his full time job going cross country. That is inspiring, and if he can imagine this future today, then it is already a reality.

(146)(249)

Gordon Spencersays:

February 28, 2016 at 8:32 am

Whats wrong with free college? Think about what you are saying. Imagine if elementary, junior high, and high school was all privatized. Only the wealthy could get an education. Why not make community college on par with the public education system that teaches our children. I mean if we made high-school eight years instead of four years, and you could graduate with a degree, in whatever you wanted, would you be opposed to that. And why? And if not, what is the difference between community college for free? Last time I checked high school is also community based. And its free. Will everybody complete it? NO! But i bet you there are some who will. And if you got the money to go to Princeton. GO! Nobody is stopping you. After all this is america.

(28)(5)

Patricia Panitzsays:

February 12, 2016 at 2:55 am

Online education doesn't work. It may sound good in theory, but a recent study out of Stanford found that students in online charter schools made virtually no progress in math over the course of a year, and only about half the progress that public school students did in reading. Kids learn best in a social context, among peers and with the guidance of a teacher. The Walton Foundation found the results of the study "sobering" and is re-evaluating its support of online ed.

(126)(8)

Dennis Davissays:

February 11, 2016 at 3:42 am

The same technology that can democratize education can also show today's generation how much of their current social and economic position they can trace to slavery. The advance these folks take for granted and have benefited from for so many years is why there needs to be some kind of settlement of accounts for the fact American economic advancement was fueled by free labor so much so that fratricide was needed to ween granddaddy off of 'My way of life'.
I believe the war on drugs is a dog whistle for legalized bondage. Lets start here to repair the situation and end this war on drugs. Let the free market run its course and let African Americans into the market (unlike what we see in Colorado, where African Americans and others are behind bars for the same thing people on the outside can now do legally, smh).
A large portion of the poverty/lack of education in the African American community is a vestige of redlining ( organized racial grouping of neighborhoods - alive and well - now called economic redlining) and it legal cousin called gerrymandering. These are issues we a dealing with today that have a direct link to the racism of the past. It is racist for one to say today (especially whose families benefited from slavery) we are so far removed from the original sin that we have no responsibility for it, whereas the victim of the sin in MANY ways is still paying the price for the sin. This and go to church every Sunday.

(98)(46)

Charles K Blacksays:

February 10, 2016 at 10:27 pm

I doubt that Bernie would disagree with your idea pursuant to a college education. We live in the information age. It's all available at our fingertips... if we have a computer and are computer literate. The idea that one teacher can reach thousands is a bit disingenuous. An orator can reach millions. Does that mean they can teach millions? Many studies have shown the lecture model of education to result in 50% or less retention of the material presented. The two way communication available in a classroom setting is much more effective. How might you conduct a useful lab online? Virtual labs are improving, but it is not the same as actually having your hands involved in the process. I have taught apprentices in two different trades for over twenty years. I have witnessed the transition to online training along with its successes... and failures. There will always be a need for the one on one interaction between student and instructor for some intellectual pursuits.

(187)(15)

Charlie Pricesays:

February 10, 2016 at 9:25 pm

A silent racism is even more pronounced in Hillary's foreign policy. In December, Counterpunch published an article drawing attention to the hypocrisy of people excoriating Trump's "travel ban" rhetoric while remaining silent about the millions of Muslims killed and displaced by Clinton's ultra-hawkishness in Libya, Syria, and Iraq, not to mention Palestine. The title asks "Who Is The Arch Racist: Hillary or the Donald?" http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/12/30/who-is-the-arch-racist-hillary-or-the-donald/ The author reaches the correct, albeit uncomfortable, conclusion.

(214)(35)

Carey Wheatonsays:

February 10, 2016 at 8:18 pm

I truly appreciate your piece, as I always hated what the Clinton administration did to Welfare (what about, ahem, Corporate Welfare, Welfare for the Rich?) and prisons, etc. But regarding Bernie Sanders: It seems unfair not to mention his powerful, unprecedented, sweeping racial justice platform put out last summer, (available on his website), addressing institutionalized racism in many manifestations: physical violence, political violence (disenfranchisement), legal violence, economic violence, and environmental violence-- all disproportionately and tragically affecting people of color. He bluntly states that some of it perpetuated by the state, some by right wing extremists, etc. I hope his clear vision, honesty and courage are appreciated, and that he is not just shrugged off as a lesser of evils. What other candidate has ever even dared to utter these words? It's a great start. Thank you for listening, and for your caring and advocacy.

(320)(38)

Carey Wheatonsays:

February 10, 2016 at 8:27 pm

https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

(112)(17)

Earl Frounfeltersays:

February 10, 2016 at 5:52 pm

Good article. The news today is all the rebuttal Bernie supporters need to Hillary's insistence that she is not "The Establishment" candidate. So far Hillary and Bernie have fought to a virtual tie in Iowa, and Bernie has beat her by at least 20 percentage points in New Hampshire. As a result, Hillary has 394 delegates to the Democratic convention and Bernie has 42. There's your democracy in action under the rules set by "The Establishment." People are going to have to pay attention and remain involved more than once every four years to change any of this.

(443)(27)

Alycee Lanesays:

February 10, 2016 at 5:34 pm

Nicely argued. I'd add: Just as Jeb is relentlessly taken to task for his failure to repudiate his brother's policies (and I'm not sure why his father's policies are off the table), so, too, should Hilary be taken to task for her husband's. Does she believe they were good for the country? If so, how? If not, why not? What would she have done differently and how does she propose to help correct the problems his policies created? How would she be different as president?

As far as the reparations argument goes, Cedric Johnson in his recent open letter to Coates makes this salient point: reparations as presently conceived would likely have "little long term bearing on inequality if the overarching processes of capital accumulation persisted without any social-democratic modification." There's really no getting around this fact, and it begs the question of whether or not a conversation about reparations that does not address the processes of capital accumulation or offer social-democratic reforms signifies in fact a serious discusson about racial injustice.

(186)(49)

600120729says:

February 10, 2016 at 5:23 pm

Dear Professor Alexander, while I appreciate this recollection of the extreme damage the Clintons did to the black community during their tenure, I would caution you not to lump then-Representative Sanders in with them because of his Yea vote on the Crime Bill.

It was, as many other votes must necessarily be because of how convoluted and corrupt the system is, a nuanced vote in favor of parts of it but in opposition to the rest.

The issue at the time was the Violence Against Women Act, for which there was $1.8 billion in the overall crime bill. Bernie was vehemently opposed to the overall bill and took to the floor numerous times denouncing the worst parts of it.

But he wanted that funding and that protection for women, so with reluctance, he voted Yea.

Could this be perceived as pitting one group against the other, or sacrificing one group for the other? Sure, if one is cynical. But if one listens to what Bernie was saying to know what was in his heart, you can only come away with one conclusion: He cares deeply for both groups, but felt his hands were tied on this particular bill. Watch and listen to the videos at the link below to hear his anger at having these bills bundled together and therefore having to vote for the larger bill, which he opposed.

The key question is, is he fighting to rectify the damage done by it, and the answer is a resounding yes. Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, shows little to no concern about righting those wrongs of her and her husband's tenure.

#FeelTheBern

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-criminal-justice/

(394)(66)

James Fillmoresays:

February 11, 2016 at 5:45 pm

This is very interesting information, thank you. Not knowing the data, I'd guess that mass incarceration has resulted in more violence against women (by increasing poverty) than the part of the act Sanders supported has prevented. If so, that was a terrible governing choice, and it is fair to hold Sanders accountable for a bad choice which harmed more people than it helped.

However we all make bad choices and hopefully we learn from our mistakes (sometimes!) You give support to the idea that Sanders has learned more from his mistakes than Clinton.

(32)(15)

Steve Muratoresays:

February 10, 2016 at 5:15 pm

Hillary is not going to "gain momentum" in any way generally recognized politically.

(118)(20)

Donna Davissays:

February 10, 2016 at 5:12 pm

Thank you, Professor Alexander, for this timely and erudite article. This is a subject that has puzzled me, since I am aware of Senator Sanders' lifelong commitment to racial and economic equality. I only wish there was a way to get this wonderful article to "go viral"!

(254)(57)

Thomas A Castillosays:

February 10, 2016 at 4:12 pm

I generally support much of Alexander's positions but strongly disagree with the Sanders characterization. At the minimum, Alexander and others owe a respectful nod to progressive critics of reparations such as (historically) Bayard Rustin and (recently) Adolph Reed who consistently sought to transform the system. Not acknowledging their legitimate, race sensitive arguments is to inaccurately categorize Sanders position and to further marginalize critical perspectives against the political economy that fostered slavery, convict labor, segregation, discrimination, ghettoization, and stigmatization.
I would add that Sanders' run under the Democratic Party is sharp political agency: Alexander surely knows the failed history of third parties in the United States. So if Alexander asks Adolph Reed about his criticisms of reparations, she may also want to learn about his own valiant but unsuccessful effort with the U.S. Labor party. Maybe then she will see why Sanders' turn to the Democratic Party made political sense. In any case, just keep the criticism focused and don't feel obligated to offer fair and balanced criticism of both candidates for the sake of objectivity. The fact remains that Sanders' run as a Democrat has offered a great opportunity to begin the arduous path of realigning the party system. Maybe, just maybe, the shift may begin with a Sanders presidency and a new Congress.

(185)(55)

Lamont Hettichsays:

February 10, 2016 at 4:05 pm

Great article!!!! One thing tho. Everyone I know fully supports the 5 year restriction on welfare. In a great society everyone should contribute in some form. Calling someone a "welfare queen" to get a point across is not a good idea. Getting people to agree that there should be limits to welfare and that everyone can and should contribute to a society might be a better approach. There are some positives to Welfare reform.

(169)(86)

David Panaksays:

February 10, 2016 at 5:37 pm

sure, many support welfare reform until the real 'queens of welfare' get tweaked: the middle class who have voted in all kinds of free public education and free retirement (aka Social Security) entitlements for themselves. Compared to all those hand-out programs for the upper and middle class, welfare for the poor is not even a drop in the bucket.

(112)(245)

James Fillmoresays:

February 11, 2016 at 5:54 pm

Agreed completely on the "drop in the bucket" line. You're right. We waste all kinds of money on all kinds of far less vital things. I would propose that we need to be far more inventive than we are now in finding ways for people on assistance to contribute to society. Not because we can't afford to help them; we can. But because feeling helpless is a terrible thing for people to endure. We should be reaching out to people who can't work and exploring other things they can do to make their lives more rewarding. Providing counseling, helping in community gardens, assisting with home/apartment repair, helping attend medical appointments for the elderly and/or isolated. Virtually everyone has something they can contribute. Virtually everyone wants to contribute. We don't need a five-year limit on "welfare." We need a lifelong commitment to helping everyone find a role that suits their skills and fulfills their souls.

(57)(3)

David Panaksays:

February 11, 2016 at 10:53 pm

i'm not sure how you could agree with what i wrote by repeating what i disagreed with. Anyway - the unfunded entitlements for the middle class are nearing $120TRILLION, there is just no real point to welfare reform. Why bother? Leave the poor people alone. The only real concern should be with the free-loaders in the middle and upper class; those are the ones who demand the entitlement hand-outs that they have "paid into", or "paid taxes for" or whatever (wrongly thinking that those taxes were saved somewhere for them), when they can well afford to pay their own way. Maybe we could agree to eliminate all public school, social security, and Medicare entitlements for the wealthy. That would be a good start in the right direction.

(9)(36)

David Panaksays:

February 10, 2016 at 3:40 pm

Amazing article – exceptionally well written. Thank You.

But why let the finger-pointing stop there? How about President LBJ (the Democrat) infamous for saying “I’ll have those n****rs voting Democratic for the next 200 years”? Or with the founders of the KKK and gun-control (all Democrats), or with those that established the Jim Crow laws (Democrats) or the early Eugenics-Evolutionists (all Democrats – even caging Mr. Ota Benga in a zoo) or to the Black Laws “slavery by another name” (also by Democrats). Go all the way back to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where Douglas (the Democrat) supported slavery on the grounds that freed slaves would never be able to support themselves - they would starve, he said, and would be forever beholden to government.

Before the the civil-rights leaders made their deal with the devil (progressive Democrats), black family and faith were immensely strong, even through the midst of cruel and inhuman oppression.

Now, 80% of black children are born out of wedlock (excluding the 50% that were dismembered alive by abortionists), and all which blacks have endured over the ages is now seen to be no more respected and acknowledged than some creepy white dude that wants to wear a dress. Is that really just a racism or incarceration problem?

Maybe the elephant in the room is not Republican after all, or even racist, maybe it is just your stupid-selfish God-hating culture?

(569)(212)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

February 11, 2016 at 4:56 pm

David Panak repeatedly commits “a lie by omission”. He is spinning “half-truths”.
He attempts to implicate the "modern" Democrat party with the worst crimes of the Dixiecrat Democrats of the pre-1960’s Deep South. In those days, those Southern Democrats were almost all racists, that is certainly true. Left unsaid however is the counter-fact that the Deep South Republicans were backers of the KKK to an even more rabid degree and were not holding any levers of power. Immediately after the assassination of JFK, the somewhat remorseful Lyndon Johnson assumed the presidency and announced that the Democratic Party would reject institutional racism within their Party and the Nation. In collusion, all of those Dixiecrats moved away from the Democratic Party and became Republicans. Over the decades, racism, superstition, fraud, and treachery have consolidated and steadily increased among Republicans and the Republican Party. The result is the smug, vile, willful ignorance and criminal actions of the Republican Party in the USA today.

(63)(8)

David Panaksays:

February 11, 2016 at 11:11 pm

FL Szot (continuing on in the third person) fails to connect the dots. Let's start with Douglas - the Democrat slaver of the 1850's - he thought that the freed slaves would starve. Fast forward to the FL Szot party of today - there we find a smug smell of soft bigotry, of lowered expectations, always presuming that the black man will never succeed or prosper without the help of government (really, without the help of elitist Democrats). Those paltry handouts can still buy a lot of votes.
Connecting more dots for FL Szot: Margaret Sanger wanted to kill off the inferior races - fast forward to find the vast majority of the Planned Parenthood murder-mills centered in black neighborhoods. FL Szot should not so readily despise his heritage, rather he should EMBRACE the successful slaughter of minority children by his party.
David Panak will soldier on with his 'lie by omission', as the blood of innocents drips from the end of FLSzot's pointed finger.

(7)(36)

Francis Louis Szotsays:

February 12, 2016 at 11:48 am

Oh, good; a debate! First, notice that Mr. Panak totally surrenders the argument about the REAL history of pre-1960 Dixiecrats and their subsequent welcoming and rancid, racist domination of the modern Republican gang. Second, if he is consistent, Mr. Panak must believe that the reason that Wall Street and the entire financial framework of the USA was bailed-out with billions of dollars was because of the “soft bigotry” of excusing systematic fraud and criminal activities. The obscene historic burden of two-hundred and fifty years of slavery in the USA, and the continuous affliction of white racism since its abolition, is the main reason why Afro-Americans are economically hobbled and therefore worthy of reparations and financial assistance. Third, Margaret Sanger died over 50 years ago and I have never cared a whit about anything that she had to say, which is true of everyone except Panak and his friends. She is irrelevant. Bottom line, a woman must have the right to control what happens to herself and her pregnancy; period, end of discussion. Very revealing that Panak and those in the Republican Party claim to idealize “small government”, but hypocritically reject that ideal and repeatedly inject the force of law into a woman’s most private and critical decisions regarding reproduction.

(33)(6)

Steve Jenkinssays:

February 10, 2016 at 2:23 pm

I am a fan of Michelle Alexander but strongly disagree with this attack article. I agree that both Bernie and Hillary are not "culturally proficient," but Hillary's journey demonstrates a long commitment to build rich cultural communities. From her work for the Children's Defense Fund, as a strong advocate for public school integration, and as a pragmatic progressive, she support diversity and social justice.
I agree that Bernie and Hillary cannot be pragmatic without supporting representatives, but Hillary has been better at build bridges and accomplishing public interest policies. I met Hillary at a National Public School Desegregation in 1986. She spoke for true integration of schools - a supporting institution for black, brown, red, yellow, white and children with special needs. She also addressed white entitlement and white flight. She spoke out for feminism and the Equal Rights Amendment. And she reminded all that support for integrated public schools requires support for health care as a universal right and support for community
equity.
Even though I am a Hillary fan, I don't want these comments to be seen as "I'm right, Alexander is wrong." I concur with much of Professor Alexander's analysis, but I didn't want this article to become part of the "hater's Arsenal."

(141)(380)

600120729says:

February 10, 2016 at 5:40 pm

You're right, Hillary Clinton TALKS a good game.

Here's what I ask of you: Don't listen to what she SAYS, look at what she's actually DONE.

She did, in fact, advocate strongly for gutting Welfare, calling the women who were on it "deadbeats" who had no dignity. And her strong advocacy contributed to its passage, destroying millions of lives.

She did work for the Children's Defense Fund, that's true. But its founder, Marian Wright Edelman, was appalled at how she turned her back on children with her advocacy for her husband's welfare reform act and Edelman's husband, Peter Edelman, was so outraged he quit his position in the Department of Health and Human Services in protest. And he wasn't alone; two others quit their Clinton administration jobs in anger as well, decrying the welfare reform act and the closure of the 61-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program as hurtling more than a million children into poverty.

"Three senior officials on welfare policy resigned from the Clinton administration in response to Bill and Hillary’s scrapping of welfare. Peter Edelman, a legal scholar who at the time served as an assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, told The New York Times, ‘I have devoted the last 30-plus years to doing whatever I could to help in reducing poverty in America. I believe the recently enacted welfare bill goes in the opposite direction.’

"Wendell Primus, another high-ranking official in the department, quit in protest as well. A scientific study he had overseen showed that, because of PRWORA, more than a million children would fall into poverty. Peter Edelman disclosed that this study was ‘personally handed’ to President Clinton, but was ignored. To remain in the Clinton administration then, Primus maintained, ‘would be to disown all the analysis my office has produced regarding the impact of the bill.’"

Back in '08 Obama was called upon to repudiate Jeremiah Wright. Can Hillary be blamed for all of Bill's bad policies? Maybe not. But perhaps she should be called upon to embrace them or to repudiate him.

(161)(22)

Doug Barrsays:

February 10, 2016 at 1:43 pm

﻿"Hopefully, one day, we’ll muster the courage to join together in a revolutionary movement with people of all colors who believe that basic human rights and economic, racial, and gender justice are not unreasonable, pie-in-the-sky goals."

That day could come. It must come if humanity is to survive. To achieve this unity we have to understand why we are so fatally divided. http://thelastwhy.ca/poems/2015/6/25/life-a-reaction-to-the-void

(68)(34)

Philip Millersays:

February 10, 2016 at 1:31 pm

Hillary has the black vote because of a "perception" of "electability." If that changes then the loyalty will change. You will never find your perfect candidate. She does represent "the establishment."

(171)(23)

Charles K Blacksays:

February 10, 2016 at 1:22 pm

What we need is cooperation among those who have been duped time and again by the establishment. There are many disenfranchised white people. also. Unfortunately, they are as gullible as the rest. Until we realize that we have a common plight and a common enemy, nothing will change. This year I am optimistic and becoming more ecstatic with the prospect that the veil may be lifting. I am an old man now, but I have not been this enthusiastic about change since the sit-ins and marches of the sixties.
All politics is local. A change in leadership will not accomplish much without similar changes in Congress. We seem to believe that we are voting for God every four years. It does not work that way. Every time the voting booth is open, we need to be there. We need to have done our homework and elect people who actually represent us. You do not need a majority to start a revolution. Ten percent would probably be enough. But heed the advice below. "Don't stop 'til you're all worn out."

(212)(20)

Cynthia De Luzsays:

February 10, 2016 at 1:12 pm

In Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, black people were counted as "three-fifths" of a human being. In other words, black people were not fully human; furthermore, no one has ever convened a Congressional Convention to remove that language from the law. Black lives do matter! Neither the Democrats (Clinton and Sanders) or the Republicans (Trump and others) represent me. I thank you for your very insightful article.

(57)(174)

Gordon Spencersays:

February 28, 2016 at 8:37 am

Let that Go. Neither Hillary nor Sanders is responsible for that racist language

(1)(1)

Alycee Lanesays:

February 11, 2016 at 1:32 pm

The “three-fifths clause,” writes historian Barbara Jeanne Fields in “Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America,” does not distinguish between blacks and whites – not even, using more polite terms, between black and white people. (Indeed, the terms black and white – or, for that matter, Negro and Caucasian – do not appear anywhere in the Constitution…). The three-fifths clause distinguishes between free Persons – who might be of European or African descent – and other Persons, a euphemism for slaves. The issue at stake was whether slaveowning citizens would hold an advantage over non-slaveowning citizens; more precisely, whether slaves would be counted in total population for the purose of appportioning representation in Congress – an advantage for slave-holders in states with large numbers of slaves – and of asessing responsibility for direct taxes – a disadvantage. The Constitution answered by saying yes, but at a ratio of three-fifths, rather than the five-fifths that slaveholders would have preferred for representation or the zero-fifths they would have preferred for taxes.”

(29)(3)

Carey Wheatonsays:

February 10, 2016 at 8:26 pm

Please read this before you give up on Bernie, thanks.
https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

(50)(22)

Elizabeth Whitehousesays:

February 10, 2016 at 8:16 pm

There is so much about the Constitution that needs to be tidied up.

(33)(49)

James O'donnell Iiisays:

February 10, 2016 at 1:08 pm

Thank you so much for this article, Michelle. I have followed your work for years, and I consider "The New Jim Crow" essential reading for all Americans. In short, you are one of my true heroes (along with Amy Goodman, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Chris Hedges, and a handful of other titans of principled progressivism); and I don't believe it is possible to overstate your contribution to our national discussion on race. Again, thank you.

That said, I have two minor beefs with today's article, and they are as follows: 1) You give short shrift to Bernie Sanders' career-long battle for social justice, including (but not limited to) fighting for desegregation and marching with Dr. King; and 2) you make no reference to the shameless race-baiting campaign the Clintons ran against then-Sen. Obama in 2008, including disseminating their little photo of Barack Obama in Kenya (wearing the traditional garb of a Somali elder) and refusing to state categorically that Obama is a Christian (as then-Sen. Clinton did on "60 Minutes"). The Clintons in 2008 apparently concluded that ghetto-izing drug references and feeding into a little Islamophobic "birtherism" might help them win... which was shameless and morally reprehensible. As much as I respect your work, I feel strongly that you should have included both of these significant points.

(480)(176)

Judith Levittsays:

February 10, 2016 at 2:07 pm

I agree with every word here. The article is wonderful, but I'm so glad you examined it closely and pointed out those 2 things. It's weird all the Obama people I know who are now pro-Hillary. SHE of course is the most anti-Obama democrat on record. And as secy of state, she disagreed plenty, and not in a good way, always being more hawkish.

(170)(39)

James O'donnell Iiisays:

February 10, 2016 at 3:32 pm

Thank you, Judith. Along with her tireless support for neoconservative policies, beginning with her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, Hillary Clinton's sordid race-baiting episode in 2008 did much to permanently lower my esteem for her as a public figure.

(150)(32)

William Hoggsays:

February 11, 2016 at 7:34 am

The race-baiting in 2008, both overt and implied, plus the implied Muslim comments, by Hillary was shocking to me. All I could see was Republican tactics being used in a Democratic Primary battle. This is one of the things that first soured my view of Hillary Clinton. Now, she has David Brock, who is doing the same thing with Bernie Sanders. I will vote for her if she is the nominee, but I am supporting Bernie Sanders.

(52)(8)

Anne Jureksays:

February 12, 2016 at 1:48 pm

Speaking of her race baiting, interestingly,in the debate last night in South Carolina there were race-baiting undertones in her constant impugning of Sanders for daring to disagree with her sudden buddy Obama.

(27)(2)

Bill Ehrhornsays:

February 10, 2016 at 12:41 pm

Of course, any of the Repubs for the last 20 years would have been more understanding towards the Black community. The only way today to move forward on race is through progressive Dems not Repubs.

(88)(788)

Patrick Lawrencesays:

February 10, 2016 at 12:27 pm

Michelle. Over the w'kend we heard John Sebastian ('member him?) sing an old jug band blues, "Don't stop 'til you're all worn out."
Don't. If this shambles is ever reconstituted as a proper society--or do I mean "constituted"?--it'll be people w/ minds and hearts like yours who get it done. Kind regards. Patrick Lawrence. @thefloutist.

(78)(117)

Rosemary Agonitosays:

February 10, 2016 at 12:21 pm

Wonderful piece! But I do think it underestimates Sanders and his life-long commitment to civil rights and economic justice. He's not perfect (who of us is?), but he learns from past mistakes and he'll fight like hell against right wingers and racists if he becomes president.

(295)(280)

M C Gabrielsays:

February 10, 2016 at 10:00 am

Thank you! Critical for us to understand this history. And we also need to focus on each of our Senate and House races. If the next president continues to face a Congress as hostile as this one, no amount of revolution or pragmatism will be nearly enough. According to Nate Silver only something like 30% of voters identify as Republican. The only way they can win is if they make the rest of us so disgusted that we stay home and don't vote -- and of course that's exactly the game they're playing, along with all of their outright voter disenfranchisement schemes. We ALL have to actually vote!!! and then hold the winners accountable every day to follow through on what they said they would do when they asked for our support.

(298)(306)

Rachel Weaversays:

February 10, 2016 at 8:55 am

Standing ovation.

(240)(244)

Joseph Walkersays:

February 10, 2016 at 7:34 am

The idea that the African American community supports the Clinton ideal is absurd. No group has suffered more under their leadership. The courage of this proud and resourceful race of people do not have their "heads in the sand" and know exactly the deal they have been dealt. In the end, only the Clinton campaign will be left believing the story behind her vast support of these betrayed and truly important communities.

(666)(199)

Gordon Spencersays:

February 28, 2016 at 8:40 am

She crushed Bernie in the SC primary. The idea that the AA community supports the Clinton ideal is far from absurd. Its reality.

(1)(2)

William Hoggsays:

February 11, 2016 at 7:56 am

I hope you're right. The Washington Post is not exactly liberal or progressive these days, but there is a perception that Hillary has the African American vote in the bag: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/01/22/why-african-american-voters-may-doom-bernie-sanders-candidacy/ Again, I hope that this is not the case, but the perception is out there. Perhaps only white authors are pushing this meme.